Are 40 cal's all marketing?

[The grons]

I have a glock 19 and 1911 .45; I have looked at the ballistics of the .40 and wonder if a 147 gr. JHP 9mm isn't extremely close to a .40 cal?

Sort of like computers and the market being saturated with windows XP so now they have to come out with windows 7 to increase sales...

No offense to the 40 cal guys but I still wonder if a 147 JHP or even +P will get the same job done as a .40?

 

[wow6599]

Yes. It should be 9mm, .45 ACP and 10mm....in that order. The 40 S&W wouldn't be with us if a bunch of small men and ladies hadn't complained about the "kick" of the 10mm in the late 80's.
The 40 S&W is nothing more than a neutered 10mm.

 

[JellyJar]

To me the 40s&w makes very good sense in a compact or subcompact pistol. It does not recoil as much as the same gun in .45acp and makes a bigger hole than any 9mm should the magic bullet not expand.

The 10mm only makes sense in a full size service pistol which most people would not use for CCW.

IIRC, when it first came out the 10mm did not have as good a reputation as a man stopper as you would like. Consider the Gillum shooting in Houston Texas back in the 1980s.

http://www.civiliansdown.com/Byron Gillum description page.htm

After being shot three times with a 10mm auto ( the article in the link does not say so but I know it was a Colt 1911 in 10mm that was used ) Gillum then tried to climb out the window of his car while being shot three more times by the officer. ( This was not a justifiable shooting IMHO despite being no billed by the grand jury )

At the same time the .40S&W was being adopted by many police departments and with the right ammo developed a very good reputation for police use, i.e good man stopper.

There is more to choosing a caliber for SD or such then just paper ballistics. I have not heard anything more about the man stopping qualities of the 10mm since then. Have you?

 

[Manco]

Yes. It should be 9mm, .45 ACP and 10mm....in that order. The 40 S&W wouldn't be with us if a bunch of small men and ladies hadn't complained about the "kick" of the 10mm in the late 80's.
The 40 S&W is nothing more than a neutered 10mm.

.40 S&W still packs a slightly bigger punch than 9mm+P. The fact that most people insist on using +P ammo in 9mm for defensive purposes is telling. Maybe we should get rid of 9mm, and tell all the small men and ladies to suck it up.

 

[mljdeckard]

The .40 recoils MORE than comparable guns in .45 ACP. It's a much higher-pressure cartridge. Try some. The 10mm might well be magical, but when you have to engineer completely new guns to shoot it at all, it will always struggle to keep mainstream relevance.

The .40 is relevant because it's a step up in energy and trauma from 9mm, but can be chambered in guns of the same size. When you have designed a new gun in 9mm, you cazn release a model in .40 at the same time. The new 10mm version comes after the .45 and compact models, if ever.

As for whether or not other loads, like 147 gr 9mm are close enough that it doesn't matter, you must realize that pretty much ALL pistol cartridges offer marginal real-world difference in stopping power. To really see a difference in stopping power in pistol cartridges, you need to compare the very top of the scale (something like a 230 gr HST) to the very bottom. (115 gr 9mm FMJ.) ALL pistol cartridges suck.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

147gr 9mm has a sectional density of .167, which is slightly more than 180gr .40 S&W (.161) and 230gr .45 ACP (.162), yet all three exhibit similar terminal performance characteristics when propelled at similar velocities (900-1000 fps).

Likewise 124gr 9mm has a sectional density of .141, which is a little less than 165gr .40 S&W, a little more than 155gr .40 S&W (.138) and about the same as 200gr .45 ACP (.140)

It no coincidence that bullets of similar sectional density, propelled at similar velocity, perform about the same.

The concept of .40 S&W was to fit a medium caliber bullet in a 9mm sized handgun and to provide greater magazine capacity than .45 ACP.

 

[JustinL]

Oh God, here we go again!

 

[Shawn Dodson]

The 40 S&W wouldn't be with us if a bunch of small men and ladies hadn't complained about the "kick" of the 10mm in the late 80's.

Incorrect.

The 180gr 10mm bullet (.161) is nearly identical in sectional density as .45 ACP 230gr (.162). The FBI developed the reduced velocity 10mm cartridge because .45 ACP out performed both 9mm 147gr and .38 Special +P. Propelling a bullet with the same sectional density as .45 ACP 230gr but about 100 fps faster allowed it to outperform all other cartridges tested. There was no need to propel it any faster. Reduced recoil was a merely byproduct of the effort.

 

[zoom6zoom]

If it was marketing they would call it the 10mm Kurz. I do, when I want to mess with people.

 

[TonyT]

I shoot 9mm, 40 S&W and 45 ACP in semi auto pistols. Recoil poerception is very individualised. I feel the 45 ACP as a big push while the40 S&W has more of a crack to it. The 40 S&W is a fine defensive cartridge since you can get roughly 45 ACP energies out of a smaller case and smaller gripped gun with larger mag capacity.

 

[ranger335v]

Auto loading handguns are defence tools. If you need a defence tool you need it bad. Why anyone would even consider anything less than the 1911/.45ACP for defence is beyond my comprehension. The various 9mm handguns are target guns for combat game players, not combat. You won't need a "double tap" head shot with a .45.

 

[Azb]

Georgia Arms sells a .40 +P 155gr that purportedly hits 1300fps.

That would have more energy than a 9mm 147gr at 1000fps. +P+ 9mm ammo has ~1200fps velocity, but generally with a much lighter projectile.

.40 also makes a bigger hole.

Not earth shattering, but .40 is a little better.

Az

 

[Azb]

Auto loading handguns are defence tools. If you need a defence tool you need it bad. Why anyone would even consider anything less than the 1911/.45ACP for defence is beyond my comprehension. The various 9mm handguns are target guns for combat game players, not combat. You won't need a "double tap" head shot with a .45.

Wow, you're really specific there.

I can tell you why someone might not want to carry a .45. Because they shoot a different caliber more accurately. You don't need to double tap a 9mm or .40 to the head either.

Personally, I carry a .45. I can shoot it as good or better than smaller calibers, so why not make a big hole? But I disagree with the 1911 only. My EDC has a 15+1 capacity, is lighter, and more reliable.

I'm glad you're happy with .45 and 1911, but there are other tools in the toolbox.

Az

 

[Landric]

Its really all about marketing. The .40 S&W just happens to be a recent entry. The 357 SIG is so named because of marketing, the 327 Federal as well (and 327 doesn't make any sense outside of marketing because .32 cal revolvers use .312-.314 bullets). That doesn't make either of those cartridges, or the .40 S&W, bad. However there is a whole "tacticool culture" that revolves around the latest and greatest. New is almost always equal to better in the culture (the exception being the 1911).

Truth be told, the huge majority of us would be perfectly well armed with 5-shot .38 Special J-frames. This whole idea that bullets need to be big, heavy, and plentiful doesn't have much basis in actual reality. Its all about perception, and in a lot of cases, about movies and TV as well.

What it boils down to, IMO, is what makes one feel comfortable and what one can shoot well. Past that, its all about marketing.

 

[bdb benzino]

I' ll be the first one to admit that I recently droped the S&W 40 cal out of my personal line up. For simplcity and for the fact that I shoot 9mm, even in the +p varience, very well.

Now saying that, I also need to say that in my experience, if you can handle the snappy recoil of the 40 then it is a great round for HD or CC. It definately has its place and has a track record for being effective.

IMHO, the whole... its a marketing gimick thing, is a load of bs. Thousands of LE's would not have changed over for a gimick, and thinking so is rediculious. If it works for you then great and if you need something softer, there is always 9mm and 45acp.

 

[wow6599]

Incorrect.

The 180gr 10mm bullet (.161) is nearly identical in sectional density as .45 ACP 230gr (.162). The FBI developed the reduced velocity 10mm cartridge because .45 ACP out performed both 9mm 147gr and .38 Special +P. Propelling a bullet with the same sectional density as .45 ACP 230gr but about 100 fps faster allowed it to outperform all other cartridges tested. There was no need to propel it any faster. Reduced recoil was a merely byproduct of the effort.

Known as the 40 S&W......a neutered 10mm.

 

[Carter]

I shoot a 9mm subcompact better than a .40 subcompact. Therefore, for me the 9mm is better to carry because I can put every bullet right where I want it to be.

I can also shoot a .45 1911 very accurately and a glock 22 pretty accurately.

I like my carry gun to be small but, easily controlled, and still have better than 6 or 7 rounds. The 9mm gives me that. No jerky recoil to throw off my shots in such a small package. I carry 9mm +p+ winchester ranger t-series, and I trust my life to it completely.

The fact that most people insist on using +P ammo in 9mm for defensive purposes is telling.

I don't see how wanting to carry a very powerful round is "telling" of any inadequacy. The .45 SD rounds are +p. SO in other words everyone wants the most out of their chosen cartridge.

The .40 IMO is a good round for a full sized handgun. The questionable performance of FMJ 9mm rounds (what the military uses) led to its rise in popularity, plus the fact that everyone wants want the LEO's are using. I don't like it for compact and subcompact pistols, however. No matter what though, if you have a good hollow point you'll be fine.

 

[Shadow 7D]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=469914

Now quite bitching

.40 is .40, really shall we all complain on the similarity of .280 and 30.06....
they are different, 9 ain't fotay, .40 isn't .45, .45 aren't howitzers and 10mm don't come with nuclear explosions.

Now with some tweaking 9 can push some heavier loads, but not as fast a .40 can push it, .40 can push some heavier loads, but not as fast as .45 can push it....

 

[Onward Allusion]

I like the 40S&W because it is a good compromise between effectiveness and capacity.

 

[Rexster]

The .40 S&W did not NEED to be, but it is here, and it works well enough in dumping real, live criminals, and rendering them into real, dead criminals a good bit of the time. Does the .40 do this better than 9mm +p or .45 ACP? Probably not enough to be statistically significant. Modern premium JHPs are engineered to perform to the same protocols in all the major defensive/duty cartridges these days.

I work for a big-city PD, and until 1997, we could carry anything from 9mm and .38 Special up to and including any .45 as primary duty handguns. The .45 ACP was king of the hill, from a quantity standpoint, among the serious pistoleros who preferred autos. Revolver guys/gals mostly used .38 +P, with the serious sixgunners using .357 Magnum in large numbers, and bigger bores were plentiful enough to notice. When .40 S&W became the mandated duty cartridge in 1997, except for grandfathered guns, the .40 soon became the predominate cartridge used in shootings. Gentlemen, the .40 works fine, if accuracy is there.

What I do indeed remember about the .40, and 9mm +P, is that when the .40 was introduced in the early 1990's, the science of controlled-expansion bullets was not yet mature, and the 9mm was not as good then as it is now. I briefly carried a Browning Hi-Power in .40 for duty and personal-time concealed carry in the mid-1990's, before deciding the BHP was just not my cup of tea. (The BHP felt really good in the hand, better than a 1911, but I actually performed better with a 1911.)

I now carry .40 SIG P229s for duty and most personal-time concealed carry, not because I am a fan of the .40, but because the P229 is just about perfect for my hands, is compact enough for concealed carry, large enough to be a good service pistol, and is on my PD's list of approved primary duty pistols. I am comfortable knowing that .40 180-grain Gold Dots have dumped a bunch of bad guys over time. When I retire, I may or may not use the .40 as my usual HD and/or carry gun cartridge. I may convert one or more of my P229s to 357 SIG. I may re-train myself to be proficient with my 1911s. I may be content with .357 Mag revolvers. They all work well enough for my comfort.

 

[Landric]

IMHO, the whole... its a marketing gimick thing, is a load of bs. Thousands of LE's would not have changed over for a gimick, and thinking so is rediculious. If it works for you then great and if you need something softer, there is always 9mm and 45acp.

One has to understand what was going on in the LE community when the .40 S&W came on the scene and why it was adopted in the numbers it was.

Starting in the mid-1980's and through the first part of the 1990's police departments were switching from revolvers to semi-automatics. Most of these switches were the result of the idea that the police were "outgunned" on the street by drug gangs that appeared in the 1980's mostly centered around crack. The main problem with this idea was that in most cases the police were not actually outgunned and in the cases where they were it was because they were facing criminals armed with automatic weapons and/or long guns. The clear solution to this issue was to arm the police with long guns (primarily rifles) rather than spending budget dollars on semi-automatic pistols, and keep the revolvers. However, given politics and the general theme in police culture of wanting new toys, the idea that the police were outgunned gave a lot of officers in police departments who were in charge of firearms training and excuse to buy a bunch of new toys. Duty handguns need to be replaced every decade or so anyway due to wear and use, so why not replace them with semi-automatic pistols? It gives the officers on the street the idea that they are no longer outgunned and it avoids the political issues involved with arming the police with rifles.

The revolvers that were being replaced with mostly 9mm pistols were of various makes and chamberings, but the .357 Magnum had made its way into police service in a lot of places. The .357 Magnum, rightly so, had a great reputation for stopping felons. Many of these magnum revolvers were now replaced with 9mm pistols of designs not nearly as reliable as the ones we have today shooting ammunition not nearly as advanced as what we have today. Combine with that the 1986 Miami shootout and the stop gap 9mm round that the FBI put into service to increase penetration, the 147 grain Winchester OSM JHP. While the first 147 grain JHPs penetrated nicely they didn't reliably cycle all the 9mm pistols in use and the velocity was low enough and the bullet design such that it mostly didn't expand. The .357 Magnum had a mostly deserved reputation (plus a lot of myth) as the Hammer of Thor. On the other hand, the 9mm with the 147 grain JHP built a reputation of being unreliable.

The FBI never really intended the 147 grain 9mm to be the new wonder load for LE agencies, it was simply adopted until they could sort out what to do about the "failure" of the 115 grain Silvertip in Miami. LE agencies and training being what they are though, the FBI endorsed the 147 grain 9mm and agencies were switching to semi-automatics so chambered. Many agencies went with the "FBI ammo".

So, after several years of the 147 grain JHP not working very well the FBI releases its study results and the 10mm Lite is at the top of the heap (by basically duplicating .45 ACP ballistics, go figure). Some smart folks at S&W and Winchester put the 10mm Lite into a shorter case that fits in 9mm size guns, and a star is born.

Now, police departments don't like the results with the 147 grain 9mm and then the FBI tells them a .400 180 grain JHP at ~950 FPS is "the load". Departments start switching wholesale to the .40 S&W, not because its better than the best 9mm ammunition available, but because its better than the worst 9mm ammunition available. For some reason there is this idea floating around in police circles that the .45 ACP is "too much" for the average officer to handle. Not every department or person falls for it, but it is a very popular attitude. Mostly because of poor ammunition selection and the change from the .357 Magnum to the 9mm, the 9mm has a pretty poor reputation in LE circles. So, when a department doesn't like the 9mm and thinks the .45 ACP is too much for officers, what do they choose? You guessed it, the .40 S&W.

The .40 S&W is not a bad round. Its successful and very popular. However, that doesn't mean it didn't get where it is because of clever marketing and other circumstances that had nothing to do with an actual need for a new cartridge.

My department makes me carry a .40 S&W. I don't care for it at all, though I do accept that its about as effective as any duty level handgun cartridge. Given the choice between it and the 9mm, I'd take the 9mm. Given a choice of the top three, I'd take the .45 ACP. But, since I don't have a choice, I carry the .40 S&W on-duty.

On my own time I carry my own guns, and none of them is a .40 S&W.

 

[Manco]

I don't see how wanting to carry a very powerful round is "telling" of any inadequacy.

For the record, the statement I made regarding 9mm's "inadequacy" was simply an observation of how others appear to view it, made in a reply that was intended to be rhetorical in the first place. Personally, I think that standard-pressure 9mm is quite adequate for human targets, especially with modern ammunition, and that's what I'd use myself because it's closer in the relevant characteristics to practice ammunition. If I felt like going with something more powerful, just because, then I'd move up in caliber, as I did.

The .45 SD rounds are +p.

Not most of them, and I wouldn't use those loads, either.

SO in other words everyone wants the most out of their chosen cartridge.

Well, this makes sense to me, at least when going by terminal ballistics test results, and the fact that most 9mm SD loads these days are +P was probably one of the main things that turned me away from the caliber, not any perceived inadequacy--I guess I like to have options, and .40 S&W has a lot of great standard-pressure loads (as does .45 ACP).

 

[jonmerritt]

What amazes me is the data from the ballistics gell being used as gospel. When all it is used for is a medium for repeatable data useable in a lab, and to give a visual rep of what a bullet might be doing, that in no way represents real world results. Just read about the guys that came up with the idea (there own words).

 

[Shawn Dodson]

What amazes me is the data from the ballistics gell being used as gospel. When all it is used for is a medium for repeatable data useable in a lab, and to give a visual rep of what a bullet might be doing, that in no way represents real world results. Just read about the guys that came up with the idea (there own words).

Discussed in this recent thread (Bullet Effect on "Meaty" Targets??): http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=542235

 

[Landlocked Pirate]

Having recently acquired, through the death of a family member, a Glock 22 to go with my G17, one advantage I've noticed is that I can afford to stock up on what I consider to be a tolerable self-defense round (WWB 180 gr. JHP) for a lot less than the expensive 9mm +P ammo that I buy for my G17.